6 ms·

13 million in lobbying over five years to prevent more efficient tax filing for an entire nation and protect your business model. Sounds like an amazing deal fo

13 million in lobbying over five years to prevent more efficient tax filing for an entire nation and protect your business model. Sounds like an amazing deal for a company with 5 billion in revenue. I'm consistently amazed at just how little money it takes to buy off the government effectively.

ritchiea 8y ago
It's not just that, anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist has outsized interest on the right and he gets republicans to sign a pledge to not raise taxes, and if they violate the pledge Norquist raises money and campaigns against them. The problem is, the pledge also requires signees also do not support legislation to make paying taxes easier. The radical anti-tax groups are so anti-tax that they see making it easier to pay taxes as support for taxes. So they want it to be difficult to pay taxes to make it easier for them to argue against taxes entirely. The system is broken in so many places trying to approach it with any rationality gives you a headache.
- phonon 8y ago
  Where do you see that? https://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/Federal%20Pledge.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/Federal%20Pled... EDIT: OK, found this https://www.atr.org/taxpayer-advocates-issue-joint-free-file-a7496 https://www.atr.org/taxpayer-advocates-issue-joint-free-file... https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/ba148cd5babdda39f9ebb43b336b01d4.pdf https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/ba148cd5babdda39... https://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/041111lt-wycoatstaxprep.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/041111lt-wycoa...
  - xsmasher 8y ago
    Presumably in the "reduction or elimination of deductions and credits" - simplifying the tax code would require those kinds of changes.
    - gruez 8y ago
      >oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates seems reasonable to me. otherwise you could "raise" taxes by eliminating deductions.
    - SilasX 8y ago
      Seriously? That's the basis of saying that the anti-tax pledge prohibits IRS tax prep? The number of deductions and credits is orthogonal to whether the IRS can save you the effort of collecting the information about what they think you owe.
      - mikeyouse 8y ago
        Not the basis at all, just one example. Here's another good one that OP added at the end in an edit: > It’s no secret that the IRS and big spenders in Washington, D.C. want to socialize all tax preparation in America. The (ironically-named) IRS Office of Taxpayer Advocate has been pushing for IRS preparation of tax returns for years. There’s only one reason proponents want to do this—tax revenues. If the IRS invites a conflict of interest by adding “tax preparer” to its role as “tax collector,” it’s a near-certainty that everyone’s taxes will rise. In fact, higher tax revenues are a major selling point of mandatory IRS-prepared tax returns. ... > More importantly, it directs the IRS that it “shall not compete with the private sector in providing these services to taxpayers, nor acquire, develop, or deploy enabling systems to duplicate or replace private tax preparation services.” > Never again would taxpayers have to worry about the IRS filling out a Form 1040 for them against their will. These are unserious people that shouldn't be anywhere near the halls of power. https://www.atr.org/taxpayer-advocates-issue-joint-free-file-a7496 https://www.atr.org/taxpayer-advocates-issue-joint-free-file...
        SilasX 8y ago
        Alright, those would have been better excerpts to cite. The second quote is ridiculous -- it would mean the IRS shouldn't have a public facing free information site at all, that you should have to find someone else to tell you anything whatsoever about paying your taxes at all. The third seems like a deliberate strawman -- all proposals would involve you needing to approve the IRS quote. Unserious, indeed.
- whatok 8y ago
  The reasoning against many simplified tax filing proposals is that many of them reduce transparency and arguably raise taxes in an indirect sense because it makes it harder to file for deductions. I agree with that if you keep the current underlying tax system but just "simplify" filing.
  - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
    While I suppose it depends on the proposal in question, the ones I've seen generally follow a "make the simple cases easier" rule: get the forms pre-filled with what's possible to prefill, verify what's filled in is correct, and if necessary, complete what's missing. If you need to file for deductions that such a system misses, it doesn't have to be any harder than it is now.
    - whatok 8y ago
      Think about how users interact with software and how often they adjust default settings. Any additional forms outside of the pre-filled forms will likely get ignored by a sizable amount of people. That's what I meant by an indirect tax hike.
- jandrese 8y ago
  It doesn't appear that the anti-debt pledge has any weight whatsoever since around January 2017.
- wwweston 8y ago
  It turns out that: "I don't want government to operate effectively because to do so would ruin my ideological minarchism" and "I don't want government to operate effectively because I can profit from it operating less effectively" are very friendly bedfellows indeed.
- koolba 8y ago
  Filing your own taxes is already trivial for the vast majority of people. The only reason people don’t fill out their own 1040-EZ is brainwashing that “taxes are hard”.
- baddox 8y ago
  > The radical anti-tax groups are so anti-tax that they see making it easier to pay taxes as support for taxes. So they want it to be difficult to pay taxes to make it easier for them to argue against taxes entirely. I don't know if getting rid of taxes entirely is really a goal for many of these people, but what you describe doesn't sound that unreasonable. Making paying taxes easier does sound like support for taxes, right? For example, if we didn't have payroll deduction, surely there would be more popular support for tax cuts.
  - ljm 8y ago
    What does it mean in that instance to provide a service that makes taxes easy to file for you? Intuit's entire business model is making paying taxes easier. Except you have to pay for it. How does that fit into their logic? What happens if all the taxes are abolished and there is no need for that business? Will they start lobbying for more tax or lobbying against the final cut? Or lobbying for an income report system with the tax component stripped out, basically building what would have helped in the first place?
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    I’d love to see the end of payroll deductions and to make annual taxes due the Monday before Election Day. Doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t have taxes, but we’d have a tight temporal and psychological link between what we pay and the selections we make at the ballot box.
    - addicted 8y ago
      Actually, the correct temporal link would not be with elections but with choices you make to use publicly funded roads, breathe clean air due to public funded regulations, etc. That's the temporal connection that needs to be made. The idea that there is a whole host of politicians who want to increase taxes is ludicrous. No one campaigns on the basis of increasing taxes. Further, in most of the West, taxes have dropped dramatically over the past few decades. Most politicians campaign on (1) reducing taxes or (2) providing some benefits. The dishonest politicians campaigning on #2 are teh ones who claim you can increase benefits without increasing taxes (which is occasionally true but rarely). It's only the honest politicians campaigning on #2 who add that the benefit will indeed have to be paid for by higher taxes. The politicians increasing taxes are the good guys because they're the only ones at least thinking about paying for benefits.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  A similar group of people are upset at the signs in California highlighting works projects done with the new Gas Tax money (SB 1) that's up for repeal in November. Their argument is that if people see the projects that are benefiting from that tax money, they'll be more in favor of keeping the tax.
Karishma1234 8y ago
It is not that simple and there are deeper issues. If buying out politicians was easy Google and Amazon would have easily raised H1B cap by now. Just like in immigration there are multiple forces at play in taxation too. The powerful anti-tax group (which I support) is against this simplification problem. We believe making it simple would also make it simple to raise taxes and people will not realise how much money they are paying to the government. This reduces government's accountability in spending. I think IRS must send us a bill each month and we must write a check to pay it. It is both simple and also people feel the pinch of paying taxes thus supporting measures to reduce taxes over time.
- jedberg 8y ago
  > We believe making it simple would also make it simple to raise taxes and people will not realise how much money they are paying to the government. In other words you think people are too dumb to do the math, but yet are smart enough to make intelligent protests against taxes when they have to write a check?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Karishma1234 8y ago
    I do not make any value judgement here about other people. I do not want money taken away from people without they explicitly agreeing to it (even though disagreement might mean jail).
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      You agreed to follow the laws of the country in which you reside by continuing to reside there.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        To be clear, are you implying that residence implies consent to every policy? Is that really what you’re saying? Note: I don’t agree with the GP.

ritchiea 8y ago

It's not just that, anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist has outsized interest on the right and he gets republicans to sign a pledge to not raise taxes, and if they violate the pledge Norquist raises money and campaigns against them. The problem is, the pledge also requires signees also do not support legislation to make paying taxes easier. The radical anti-tax groups are so anti-tax that they see making it easier to pay taxes as support for taxes. So they want it to be difficult to pay taxes to make it easier for them to argue against taxes entirely. The system is broken in so many places trying to approach it with any rationality gives you a headache.

phonon 8y ago
Where do you see that? https://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/Federal%20Pledge.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/Federal%20Pled... EDIT: OK, found this https://www.atr.org/taxpayer-advocates-issue-joint-free-file-a7496 https://www.atr.org/taxpayer-advocates-issue-joint-free-file... https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/ba148cd5babdda39f9ebb43b336b01d4.pdf https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/ba148cd5babdda39... https://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/041111lt-wycoatstaxprep.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/041111lt-wycoa...
- xsmasher 8y ago
  Presumably in the "reduction or elimination of deductions and credits" - simplifying the tax code would require those kinds of changes.
  - gruez 8y ago
    >oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates seems reasonable to me. otherwise you could "raise" taxes by eliminating deductions.
  - SilasX 8y ago
    Seriously? That's the basis of saying that the anti-tax pledge prohibits IRS tax prep? The number of deductions and credits is orthogonal to whether the IRS can save you the effort of collecting the information about what they think you owe.
    - mikeyouse 8y ago
      Not the basis at all, just one example. Here's another good one that OP added at the end in an edit: > It’s no secret that the IRS and big spenders in Washington, D.C. want to socialize all tax preparation in America. The (ironically-named) IRS Office of Taxpayer Advocate has been pushing for IRS preparation of tax returns for years. There’s only one reason proponents want to do this—tax revenues. If the IRS invites a conflict of interest by adding “tax preparer” to its role as “tax collector,” it’s a near-certainty that everyone’s taxes will rise. In fact, higher tax revenues are a major selling point of mandatory IRS-prepared tax returns. ... > More importantly, it directs the IRS that it “shall not compete with the private sector in providing these services to taxpayers, nor acquire, develop, or deploy enabling systems to duplicate or replace private tax preparation services.” > Never again would taxpayers have to worry about the IRS filling out a Form 1040 for them against their will. These are unserious people that shouldn't be anywhere near the halls of power. https://www.atr.org/taxpayer-advocates-issue-joint-free-file-a7496 https://www.atr.org/taxpayer-advocates-issue-joint-free-file...
      - SilasX 8y ago
        Alright, those would have been better excerpts to cite. The second quote is ridiculous -- it would mean the IRS shouldn't have a public facing free information site at all, that you should have to find someone else to tell you anything whatsoever about paying your taxes at all. The third seems like a deliberate strawman -- all proposals would involve you needing to approve the IRS quote. Unserious, indeed.
whatok 8y ago
The reasoning against many simplified tax filing proposals is that many of them reduce transparency and arguably raise taxes in an indirect sense because it makes it harder to file for deductions. I agree with that if you keep the current underlying tax system but just "simplify" filing.
- chipotle_coyote 8y ago
  While I suppose it depends on the proposal in question, the ones I've seen generally follow a "make the simple cases easier" rule: get the forms pre-filled with what's possible to prefill, verify what's filled in is correct, and if necessary, complete what's missing. If you need to file for deductions that such a system misses, it doesn't have to be any harder than it is now.
  - whatok 8y ago
    Think about how users interact with software and how often they adjust default settings. Any additional forms outside of the pre-filled forms will likely get ignored by a sizable amount of people. That's what I meant by an indirect tax hike.
jandrese 8y ago
It doesn't appear that the anti-debt pledge has any weight whatsoever since around January 2017.
wwweston 8y ago
It turns out that: "I don't want government to operate effectively because to do so would ruin my ideological minarchism" and "I don't want government to operate effectively because I can profit from it operating less effectively" are very friendly bedfellows indeed.
koolba 8y ago
Filing your own taxes is already trivial for the vast majority of people. The only reason people don’t fill out their own 1040-EZ is brainwashing that “taxes are hard”.
baddox 8y ago
> The radical anti-tax groups are so anti-tax that they see making it easier to pay taxes as support for taxes. So they want it to be difficult to pay taxes to make it easier for them to argue against taxes entirely. I don't know if getting rid of taxes entirely is really a goal for many of these people, but what you describe doesn't sound that unreasonable. Making paying taxes easier does sound like support for taxes, right? For example, if we didn't have payroll deduction, surely there would be more popular support for tax cuts.
- ljm 8y ago
  What does it mean in that instance to provide a service that makes taxes easy to file for you? Intuit's entire business model is making paying taxes easier. Except you have to pay for it. How does that fit into their logic? What happens if all the taxes are abolished and there is no need for that business? Will they start lobbying for more tax or lobbying against the final cut? Or lobbying for an income report system with the tax component stripped out, basically building what would have helped in the first place?
- sokoloff 8y ago
  I’d love to see the end of payroll deductions and to make annual taxes due the Monday before Election Day. Doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t have taxes, but we’d have a tight temporal and psychological link between what we pay and the selections we make at the ballot box.
  - addicted 8y ago
    Actually, the correct temporal link would not be with elections but with choices you make to use publicly funded roads, breathe clean air due to public funded regulations, etc. That's the temporal connection that needs to be made. The idea that there is a whole host of politicians who want to increase taxes is ludicrous. No one campaigns on the basis of increasing taxes. Further, in most of the West, taxes have dropped dramatically over the past few decades. Most politicians campaign on (1) reducing taxes or (2) providing some benefits. The dishonest politicians campaigning on #2 are teh ones who claim you can increase benefits without increasing taxes (which is occasionally true but rarely). It's only the honest politicians campaigning on #2 who add that the benefit will indeed have to be paid for by higher taxes. The politicians increasing taxes are the good guys because they're the only ones at least thinking about paying for benefits.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
A similar group of people are upset at the signs in California highlighting works projects done with the new Gas Tax money (SB 1) that's up for repeal in November. Their argument is that if people see the projects that are benefiting from that tax money, they'll be more in favor of keeping the tax.

Karishma1234 8y ago

It is not that simple and there are deeper issues. If buying out politicians was easy Google and Amazon would have easily raised H1B cap by now. Just like in immigration there are multiple forces at play in taxation too. The powerful anti-tax group (which I support) is against this simplification problem. We believe making it simple would also make it simple to raise taxes and people will not realise how much money they are paying to the government. This reduces government's accountability in spending. I think IRS must send us a bill each month and we must write a check to pay it. It is both simple and also people feel the pinch of paying taxes thus supporting measures to reduce taxes over time.

jedberg 8y ago
> We believe making it simple would also make it simple to raise taxes and people will not realise how much money they are paying to the government. In other words you think people are too dumb to do the math, but yet are smart enough to make intelligent protests against taxes when they have to write a check?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Karishma1234 8y ago
  I do not make any value judgement here about other people. I do not want money taken away from people without they explicitly agreeing to it (even though disagreement might mean jail).
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    You agreed to follow the laws of the country in which you reside by continuing to reside there.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      To be clear, are you implying that residence implies consent to every policy? Is that really what you’re saying? Note: I don’t agree with the GP.